I really don't agree with you. An improved interface would still give you no physical memories, relative locational memory, "what size was the book" memories, or the kind of 1000ft view skimming can give you.
When I've been working on my book, that I'm writing, I can tell you that there's no UI which could replace printing the sucker out and spreading it over the living room floor.
Have you not used flick-scroll? I definitely have a palpable sense of being in the middle, or at the end. Cover-flow gives me the same sort of sense.
Perhaps this is not going to be as good as a real, physical book. But if you can find a workable analogue, this is a practical way of carrying a whole reference library with you at all times. That your interface is not as good is a workable trade-off for availability. You can always return to your desk or your library for intensive work sessions.
Having wireless or mobile broadband to do searches is often not an adequate substitute for this. Often, the references one needs are not available for free because they are too esoteric or specific. I these cases, it's much better to be able to collect together specific references to carry with you. (Or otherwise make easily available.)
An improved interface would still give you no physical memories, relative locational memory, "what size was the book" memories, or the kind of 1000ft view skimming can give you.
Flick-scroll and cover-flow are attractive precisely because they tweak the our sense of manipulating the physical. I can imagine an interface that can utilize relative locational memory and the book's size. In fact, I think I've seen writeups of people's research on alternative desktop interfaces that are like this.
Yes, of course I've used flick scroll. You don't think a HNer who owns 2 Kindles would own an iPhone? I have 3 iPhones! (Three! Three iPhones! Wah ha ha.)
It's still not the same. You can't get AWAY from the content and get a higher/further view. It's different. Maybe I'm failing at explaining - but while flick scroll is BETTER, it still falls short. By a lot.
I am most interested in KM and information science, and a book addict, and a crazy user interface designer. I have paid much attention to these things. :)
BTW, there was that study a few days ago that said that physically taking a step back improved puzzle scores. How bout that?
Yes, of course I've used flick scroll. You don't think a HNer who owns 2 Kindles would own an iPhone? I have 3 iPhones! (Three! Three iPhones! Wah ha ha.)
I am most interested in KM and information science, and a book addict, and a crazy user interface designer. I have paid much attention to these things. :)
Then can you imagine interfaces that do the same exploitation of our brain's affinity to physics to do the same thing, but even better? One that also uses a sense of locality?
It's still not the same.
Heck, little black and white Palms were must-have devices for med students years ago or so because you could have a reference for the entire pharmacopia, and it fit into their pocket. Not the same and not as good doesn't matter if there is a time/place/weight tradeoff. So long as you can have enough interactivity, even a clinku interface with a tiny bit of screen real estate is good enough for reference.
When I've been working on my book, that I'm writing, I can tell you that there's no UI which could replace printing the sucker out and spreading it over the living room floor.